Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Opens room for a slippery slope. I agree with the basic premise of use of deadly force as a tool when appropriate on a hypothetical level, though.
But who's to say that it couldn't be used by someone in power who happens to disagree with you? What if they cross the line on justifications for their own convenience? Not all protesters are going to be rioters. More often than not I am inclined to think that there are individual elements taking advantage of a situation to profit.
That goes back to the whole debate about the role of the government. I would say it's much more likely that the left would use the guns and violence machines the government has to crush those that do simply disagree with. What you said could be very real and possible.
There is nothing against democracy to put down violent people, violent rioters, violent gangs who take advantage of a situation. Any system should put down violence and restore stability.
Americans aren't the enemy. But if they choose to be violent, they have made themselves a harm other people.
What the left wants is to take from people even when they are not violent. Now that is against democracy.
The government is not the country, the people are the country. When the government arms itself in military fashion to go to war against its own people then the government has turned to tyranny with the express purpose to suppress the people.
This is the usual outcome when the government is no longer able to be controlled by the mechanisms of democracy and the people have lost the ability to regress their grievances to government.
When the government fears the people, you have freedom. When the people fear the government, you have tyranny.
The best measure of a person's current value-add to society is his/her compensation (ignoring the public sector).
It seems to me that all the discussion of minimum wage to improve standard of living is misguided.
Instead, a minimum required annual income is better -- but with a twist.
The obligation should be on the worker to earn the minimum required annual income -- that is, the obligation on the worker is to add a minimum value-add to society. If you do not add that minimum value-add to society, you need to work more and harder. We should penalize those who fail to add enough value to society. Yes, there can be limited exceptions, but the standard should be "you must work, period, at the least until you've added a minimum required value-add to society."
People are lazy. They are entitled. They are particulalry ungrateful to things that come too easy. They are also quite selfish.
Americas investment and achievement is largely a product of hardworking immigrants legal and otherwise. Our profit is largely the contribution of consumers in other countries like China, India, and Brazil. Many American citizens, in the last 30 years, did nothing but sit around, complaining, being dependent, being complacent, and being bitter. This is not an attractive mindset to employers. Heck nobody wants this kind of people in any social and romantic setting either. It's a loser douchebag mindset, full of undeserved entitlement.
You have any proof that people are lazy and entitled are you just gonna go with the hateful assumptions you keep spurting out. Many of the most entitled and lazy people are actually the offspring of really rich people like the Walton kids who did not really earn anything but are still given everything but since you seem to hate the poor I doubt you will mention that.
The government is not the country, the people are the country. When the government arms itself in military fashion to go to war against its own people then the government has turned to tyranny with the express purpose to suppress the people.
This is the usual outcome when the government is no longer able to be controlled by the mechanisms of democracy and the people have lost the ability to regress their grievances to government.
When the government fears the people, you have freedom. When the people fear the government, you have tyranny.
And how does that invalidate my point?
Should the government take no action when violent people are harming other people?
It's not government versus all people. It's violent people versus peaceful people. The government has to take an action when people are being hurt by violence. The government does have a violent machine regulated by the law and that machine is used to protect people against violence.
Yes protests in this country become violent, left or right or whatever, the government must stop in to protect basic social order and make sure that people are not getting hurt.of course the government cannot cross people whatever way it wants; it must do it appropriately based on the laws written. Otherwise the government would have also committed an illegal violent act even if it is crushing violence.
Your solution to poverty wouldn't work, there will always be people that do not want to do there fair share, regardless if it benefits them in the long run. Drug addicts are the first that come to mind. I for one would have a problem with my tax dollars supporting someone that just want to sit around and get high all day.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Opin_Yunated
That has nothing to do with work.
Poverty could be cured tomorrow. We are just too busy trying to impose morality on citizens who already don't have food to eat.
It doesn't? The original poster stated below in his first post:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Techtonics
Guaranteed minimum income:
Eligibility is typically determined by citizenship, a means test and either availability for the labor market or a willingness to perform community services.
Availability would imply that you not only have to be available but willing to WORK if asked.
Can you cite any examples of where the opposite has actually happened?
I can, the percentage of population of Americans receiving welfare since the year 2000 has increased, this is despite an US population employment ratio that increased from 2003 to 2007. If more people were working during those years, you would expect the welfare rate to also decrease, but it didn't. This would imply that those on welfare are not interested in working.
I can, the percentage of population of Americans receiving welfare since the year 2000 has increased, this is despite an US population employment ratio that increased from 2003 to 2007. If more people were working during those years, you would expect the welfare rate to also decrease, but it didn't. This would imply that those on welfare are not interested in working.
We have tens of millions of WORKING poor who receive various levels of welfare benefits. Receiving benefits does not mean a person is lazy, or not working, most are woking for very low pay
. U.S. Low-Income Working Families Increasing
During the recent presidential election, low-income families were described as "takers" who do not work and rely on government aid, he noted. But the report shows that in 2011 more than seven in 10 low-income families were working. Also, half of all families with incomes below the poverty line ($22,811 for a family of four with two children) were working.
(January 2013) Economic security is out of reach for a growing number of working families in the United States, according to a new analysis of 2011 data from the U.S. Census Bureau's American Community Survey. The number of low-income working families rose from 10.2 million in 2010 to 10.4 million in 2011, representing nearly one-third of all working families.
Location: East of Seattle since 1992, 615' Elevation, Zone 8b - originally from SF Bay Area
44,293 posts, read 80,538,426 times
Reputation: 57243
Quote:
Originally Posted by detshen
We have tens of millions of WORKING poor who receive various levels of welfare benefits. Receiving benefits does not mean a person is lazy, or not working.
You cannot generalize about any group. I have talked to people in a roving homeless camp that are only allowed to be there if working, they just cannot come up with the 1st/last month rent or have no credit to get an apartment. I have also talked to people (including one relative) that will not accept any job until after the unemployment benefit is close to running out. I spoke to one the other day that said she is "worth $15/hour and won't accept anything that pays less".
You cannot generalize about any group. I have talked to people in a roving homeless camp that are only allowed to be there if working, they just cannot come up with the 1st/last month rent or have no credit to get an apartment. I have also talked to people (including one relative) that will not accept any job until after the unemployment benefit is close to running out. I spoke to one the other day that said she is "worth $15/hour and won't accept anything that pays less".
The idea that anyone who receives government benefits is a lazy, good for nothing taker is a staple narrative of right wing propaganda. The fact that many of these people work hard, and are contributing members of our society, and economy threatens that narrative, so that fact is usually ignored.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
